Opinion
C/A NO. 6:12-3424-CMC-KFM
05-17-2013
Edmond Stanley Adams, III, Petitioner, v. Warden Eagleton, Respondent.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on the pro se application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 9, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 21.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On May 3, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner filed objections to the Report on May 15, 2013.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner's objections, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Petitioner's objections do not overcome the infirmities inherent in his motion for preliminary injunction; namely, that he cannot make a "clear showing" that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his petition. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).
Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction is denied. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 17, 2013